IANA
Report on Establishment of the .biz and .info Top-Level Domains
(25 June 2001)

IANA Report

Subject: Establishment of
the .biz and .info Top-Level Domains
Date: 25 June 2001

The Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority (the IANA) is responsible for various administrative functions
associated with management of the Internet's domain-name system root
zone, including reviewing the appropriateness of various changes to
the content of the root zone as the Internet evolves and preparing reports
on requested changes. This report gives the findings and conclusions
of the IANA on the establishment of .biz and .info top-level domains.

Factual
and Procedural Background

The Internet domain-name
system (DNS) was deployed under the guidance of Jon
Postel in 1984 and 1985 (see RFC
921) as a distributed database for information about resources on
the Internet, replacing the prior "hosts.txt" system. The
DNS contains resource records that map easy-to-remember domain names
to the unique numeric addresses assigned to every computer on the Internet.

The DNS is organized hierarchically
with several top-level domains (TLDs) containing second-level domains
(SLDs), which in turn contain third-level domains (3LDs), etc. A domain
name consists of a series of labels, separated by dots, tracing the
hierarchy from the top-level domain down to the specific computer being
identified: <3LD>.<SLD>.<TLD>. Thus, the domain name
"www.icann.org" is within the "www" third-level
domain of the "icann" second-level domain of the "org"
top-level domain.

To take advantage of the
DNS's hierarchical nature, it was initially contemplated that there
would be a limited number of top-level domains. In RFC
920, entitled "Domain Requirements" (Oct. 1984), Dr. Postel
and Joyce Reynolds proposed top-level domains with the names "arpa"
(intended to be transitional for the "ARPA-Internet"), "com"
(commercial), "edu" (education), "gov" (government),
"mil" (military), and "org" (organization) as well
as two-letter (alpha-2) names identifying countries according to the
ISO
3166-1 list."1 By the time of
actual implementation of the top-level domains in January 1985, an additional
top-level domain named "net" was included. In November 1988,
an additional top-level domain named "int" was added for international
organizations established by intergovernmental agreements. No additional
top-level domains (except for two-letter domains filling out the ISO-3166
list of countries) have been added since that time.

In March 1994, Dr. Postel
published RFC 1591,
entitled "Domain Name System Structure and Delegation" (J.
Postel March 1994), which described the overall structure of the DNS
at the time. He described the top-level domains as follows:

There are a set of what
are called "top-level domain names" (TLDs). These are the
generic TLDs (EDU, COM, NET, ORG, GOV, MIL, and INT), and the two
letter country codes from ISO-3166. It is extremely unlikely that
any other TLDs will be created.2

Beginning in 1995-1996, some
members of the Internet community expressed concern over lack of choice
concerning registration services in the generic top-level domains (gTLDs).
By January 1998, the U.S. Department of Commerce, in issuing its Green
Paper3 as a discussion draft concerning
possible improvements in the technical management of the DNS, listed
"widespread dissatisfaction about the absence of competition in
domain name registration" as a principal motivation for its conclusion
that improvements in the Internet's technical management were necessary.
The Green Paper discussed the introduction of additional TLDs in this
context.

In June 1998, the U.S. Department
of Commerce issued its White Paper,4 calling
on the Internet community to form a new, not-for-profit organization
to assume responsibility for the necessarily centralized technical coordination
functions then performed by the IANA. In response, the Internet community
formed the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
in late 1998.5

The White Paper specified
that one of ICANN's principal responsibilities would be to "oversee
policy for determining the circumstances under which new TLDs are added
to the root system," including "development of policies for
the addition, allocation, and management of gTLDs and the establishment
of domain name registries and domain name registrars to host gTLDs .
. . ." As the
White Paper recognized, "The challenge of deciding policy for the
addition of new domains will be formidable." To address this challenge,
in the White Paper the U.S. Government observed, "At least in the
short run, a prudent concern for the stability of the system suggests
that expansion of gTLDs proceed at a deliberate and controlled pace
to allow for evaluation of the impact of the new gTLDs and well-reasoned
evolution of the domain space."

For nearly the entire time
since it was formed, ICANN has devoted a significant part of its activities
to the consideration of the establishment of new generic TLDs. At the
ICANN meeting in Berlin in May 1999, ICANN's Board referred the issue
of new TLDs to the (then newly formed) Domain Name Supporting Organization
(DNSO).6 In response to this referral,
in June 1999 the DNSO Names Council (which manages the process for development
of policy recommendations within the DNSO) created
a group, known as Working Group C, to study the issues raised by the
introduction of new TLDs.7 After nine
months of extensive discussions8 and review
of several position papers,9 Working Group
C submitted its report
to the DNSO Names Council on 21 March 2000,10
recommending introduction of a limited number of TLDs, and posted the
report for public comment. Public comments were solicited
and received through the ICANN's
web-based comment forum and via
e-mail to the dnso.org site.

The Names Council therefore
recommends to the ICANN Board that it establish a policy for the introduction
of new gTLDs in a measured and responsible manner, giving due regard
in the implementation of that policy to (a) promoting orderly registration
of names during the initial phases; (b) minimizing the use of gTLDs
to carry out infringements of intellectual property rights; and (c)
recognizing the need for ensuring user confidence in the technical
operation of the new TLD and the DNS as a whole.

The DNSO recommendation continued:

we recommend to the Board
that a limited number of new top-level domains be introduced initially
and that the future introduction of additional top-level domains be
done only after careful evaluation of the initial introduction.

The introduction of new TLDs
was the principal issue addressed at ICANN's
annual meeting in November 2000. Leading up to that meeting, the
Internet community had spent several weeks reviewing the applications
and the detailed evaluation report, engaged in a robust dialogue on
ICANN's web-based public forums (with a total of over 5000 postings),
and intensely discussed the issues through ICANN's constituency and
supporting organization structures. After extensive study of the materials
in advance of the meeting and participation in the all-day public forum,
the ICANN Board discussed the applications in a several-hour
open session on 16 November 2000. As a result of this review, seven
proposals to operate or sponsor TLDs were
selected for an initial introduction of TLDs, as recommended by
the DNSO.

In late 2000, ICANN and the
proponents of the selected proposals began negotiations for appropriate
agreements under which those TLDs could be introduced while preserving
the stability of the DNS. In late April 2001, the first two agreements,
concerning the .biz and .info top-level domains, were completed. The
agreements establish technical requirements, similar to those covering
the .com, .net, and .org TLDs, for the operation of the new TLDs (covering
such topics as nameservice, data escrow, use of valid host names, and
system security and redundancy) and provide for observance of various
policies developed through the ICANN process.

This report is being provided
under the 21
March 2001 contact for performance of the IANA function between
the United States Government and the Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers. Under that contract, the IANA is responsible for
various functions associated with the management of the root zone of
the Internet domain-name system.

As contemplated by the White
Paper, the Internet community has pursued an extensive consensus-development
process through ICANN and its Domain Name Supporting Organization. This
process, which has included extensive participation by hundreds of individuals
and organizations in the Internet community, has reached the consensus
position, as recommended
by the DNSO Names Council without dissent, that "a limited
number of new top-level domains [should] be introduced initially and
that the future introduction of additional top-level domains [should]
be done only after careful evaluation of the initial introduction."
Following this policy and through additional community-based processes,
ICANN has selected seven proposals for the initial introduction, with
the goal of launching these TLDs cautiously, then observing and evaluating
the results. If the initial introduction is successful, this experience
should lay the groundwork for future introductions as part of what the
White Paper termed a "well-reasoned evolution of the domain space."

ICANN has now completed contractual
arrangements for the introduction of the first two13
of the selected TLDs, with Afilias Limited for .info and with NeuLevel,
Inc. for .biz.

The first goal of the community-based
management of the DNS is to preserve the DNS's stable and reliable operation.
The contracts that have been completed with the TLD operators have been
designed to ensure that these TLDs are introduced in a sound manner
that will maintain stable and reliable technical operation of the DNS.
In particular, the contracts recite functional and performance specifications,
data escrow requirements, and a detailed start-up plan that are designed
to ensure that stable operation of the DNS is maintained, both during
the startup phase and in the long term. User awareness is also relevant
to smooth operation of the DNS; experience has shown that some level
of confusion accompanies almost any change in the DNS. The operators
of .biz and .info, however, have committed to information-dissemination
measures that should keep any public confusion to a minimum.

Registration activities for
both .biz and .info are scheduled to commence in early July 2001, with
DNS resolution of the names that are registered to begin in September
2001. To assist in a stable introduction with the public awareness needed
to minimize confusion, ICANN has agreed with Afilias and with NeuLevel
that the .info and .biz top-level domains should be established in the
DNS at this time for testing and evaluation purposes. Initially, the
nameservice for the domains will be operated by the IANA, which will
conduct various testing procedures and then, according to schedules
and procedures developed jointly with Afilias and NeuLevel, transition
the nameservice to servers operated by those companies in time for the
September 2001 onset of regular resolution of .info and .biz names.

Conclusion

The IANA concludes that the
.biz and .info top-level domains should be established by adding them
to the root zone at this time for testing and evaluation. To ensure
a smooth and stable introduction, the nameservice should be operated
initially by the IANA and then transitioned to the selected operators,
Afilias and NeuLevel, after the .info and .biz zones are ready for population
with the initial registrations and their nameserver constellations are
demonstrated to be stable and robust.

Notes:

1.
RFC 920 also
indicated that top-level domains might be added in the future for "multiorganizations".
This was never pursued, except to the extent of the .int top-level domain
introduced in 1988.

2.
Although the .arpa domain was intended to be used only in the transition
to the DNS, it was not discontinued as originally planned because it
contained the reverse-lookup domain for IP addresses (in-addr.arpa).
See RFC 1101,
"DNS Encoding of Network Names and Other Types" (P. Mockapetris
Apr. 1989), for background. The continuing importance of the reverse-lookup
facility and the practical difficulties in moving it to another domain,
made it infeasible to eliminate the .arpa top-level altogether. In May
2000, the Internet Architecture Board published its "Statement
on Infrastructure Domain and Subdomains", which recommends
permanent retention of the .arpa TLD for Internet-infrastructure purposes.
The "arpa" abbreviation was redesignated to "Address
and Routing Parameter Area" to reduce confusion with the earlier
network name.

5.
In response to the White Paper, Internet stakeholders from around the
world came together in an extensive process of discussions and negotiations.
The process included meetings, conferences, and most appropriately for
the purpose, extensive use of the Internet. By the beginning of October
1998, this process had reached a successful conclusion and on behalf
of the global Internet community Dr. Postel submitted
to the U.S. Commerce Department articles of incorporation and proposed
bylaws for ICANN to "reflect the consensus judgment of the global
Internet community as to how to form a corporation that will include
the IANA function, and in addition take on other coordination and administrative
responsibilities necessary for the continued operational stability and
growth of the Internet. " See Letter
of Dr. Jon Postel to William M. Daley (2 October 1998).

7.
At its 25
June 1999 meeting in San Jose, California, USA, the Names Council
also created another group, known as Working Group B, to study issues
concerning the protection of famous trademarks in the context of any
newly introduced generic TLDs.